General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Greenwald Like A Boss
Best line: "Right, actually that's not at all what happened"
edit: Fixed it. Misplaced my brain. Thanks.
brucefan
(1,549 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Oh wait, wrong Greenwood.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)as im sure you know but perhaps your tablet didn't its greenWALD
William769
(55,148 posts)To the apologists & , shame on you.
dkf
(37,305 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)He says he has 'thousands' of documents from Snowden. I wonder where they are?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...unless you think that pointing out factual inaccuracies to another journalist is somehow being "rude".
randome
(34,845 posts)Of course we could both be seeing what we want to see.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it's human nature. And this case seems to be a real litmus test as to what side of the civil liberties divide people are on.
You may not be the only one who thinks Greenwald comes across as "less than objective". However, how he comes across is irrelevant to the factual content of what he presents. I have yet to see a factual takedown of Greenwald on this story.
emulatorloo
(44,261 posts)story rather than Greenwald's.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Because you certainly have not added anything factual regarding this story.
Just listing your preferred sources does not make, you know, an actual argument.
And where the hell did that Nazi thing come in? Yours is the first such reference in this exchange.
emulatorloo
(44,261 posts)You appear to be suggesting to randome that those who have some skepticism about Greenwald's reporting and some of the claims Snowden is making are "failing" the civil liberties test.
If I am incorrect please clarify. Have heard a lot of similar things said and wild accusations like this made in the last few days.
Will be very happy if I have mischaracterized you.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...about the litmus test aspect of this case. I have rarely if ever seen a case on DU that was so predictable in who takes what position.
Of course, I think that my position is the correct one. And that, of course, implies that I think people who take the opposing position are incorrect. That's what happens when you get off the fence: you end up on one side or the other, possibly shouting at those on the other side.
But I said nothing about anyone "failing" a civil liberties test; I merely observed that we're coming down on different sides of the issue. You won't hear me calling anyone a Nazi over it. I'm not trying to demonize anyone. My remark about the litmus test was not intended as an insult to those who fall on the other side of the issue; merely an observation that this case really did put the divide into stark relief.
emulatorloo
(44,261 posts)Like I say I have gotten a bit touchy about the accusations flying around. Sorry to take it out on you.
"I have rarely if ever seen a case on DU that was so predictable in who takes what position." In general I don't think it is quite so black and white. For example, I doubt there is even handful of DU'ers who have zero trepidations about what the NSA is doing. But we all talk in shorthand, and emotions are very high around the issue. more so than I have seen at DU in a long time.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I had to apologize earlier today for completely misreading someone's post in response to one of mine. I just got caught up in the back and forth, and emotion clouded my faculties.
Oh well, another day at DU, eh?
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Hoping this would all just go away fast? Greenwald has said they will be released over the coming weeks and months. You'll be defending the NSA for awhile.
randome
(34,845 posts)If the law needs to be changed, I have no problem with that.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)He's a meanie.
Argument ad Hominem.
randome
(34,845 posts)So far, I don't see a reason to believe Greenwald or Snowden.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and he repeatedly had to correct her on her misquotes. That's not being rude. She was the rude one.
Just because you "wondered where they are" doesnt mean they dont exist.
Seems like you dont like whistle-blowers. Why is that?
randome
(34,845 posts)Senator Al Franken says the NSA is not spying on us. Snowden says it is and then disappears, which makes me suspect Greenwald's motives as well.
Who is more believable?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)collecting data on us. We know they are collecting data. The president doesnt deny it. He says they arent listening to the data. The NSA asked the FISA court between one thousand and two thousand times to look at the data in the last year. That means THERE IS DATA.
We know they are collecting data. It has nothing to do with Mr. Greenwald or Mr. Snowden. They just opened the box, they are not responsible for what comes out. Sen Franken is sure that what comes out wont hurt the American public. Well bless his heart. I prefer to decide myself.
Sadly some among us cant handle the truth, whatever it is, and are trying to shut down discussion. "Keep moving, nothing to see here". That's not very Democratic nor democratic.
randome
(34,845 posts)And Snowden and Greenwald talk about 'spy stuff' all the time.
I don't consider storing data that is never viewed except by warrant to be that worrisome, that's all. Absent evidence that it is being misused, that is. So far, no evidence.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You may want to live under those conditions but I dont. Dont collect my data without a proper warrant.
You should read the book, "They Thought They Were Free"
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)The smart thing to do is slowly release them bit by bit so that the topic remains in the news and congress has to deal with it
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Around minute 3:20 if you're in a rush.
Part of what the documents include that he turned over is a list of the people that the U.S. government has been targeting. And one of the reasons he did that was so those lawsuits finally can proceed so that we can now know who has been subjected to this surveillance so they can go into court and ask a court ruling for a court ruling on whether or not this is a violation of the Constitution to have this massive surveillance system aimed at millions of Americans regardless of whether there's evidence of any wrongdoing.
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: And then finally, as you well know, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called these revelations "literally gut-wrenching." In response, you tweeted, "Save some melodrama and rhetoric for coming stories. You'll need it."
GLENN GREENWALD: Right, because in every single case over the past four to five decades when there are revelations of wrongdoing that is done in secret, what the strategy of the U.S. government is, is come out and try and scare the American public into saying, "These people have jeopardized you. There's going to be a terrorist attack." There is not a single revelation that we provided to the world that even remotely jeopardizes national security.
I just brought this up in another thread. This is the "big deal" in the big deal.
PB
Catherina
(35,568 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)thought that was pretty cool. they made it easy.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and it will be regarded as truth.
he knows he got you.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Whisp
(24,096 posts)we will see if this is true. Time will tell.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Is that the basis of their class-action suit? Did I hear Greenwald say that Snowden delivered that list to him, Greenwald?
If so, the Federal Government is in big trouble. 8 million Americans are going to be really mad when that list is published. No telling how disruptive that might prove to be. No wonder Clapper called this leak, "gut-wrenching." That seemed hyperbolic to me when I first heard it, but ... perhaps it's not so hyperbolic after all.
-Laelth
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I haven't heard him mention that he shared it with anyone. I don't think he'd advertise it either.
Gut-wrenching is putting it mildly. Now all governments and foreign corporations realize nothing they ever sent or shared on the net is safe. Trade secrets, government secrets, pillow talk with mistresses, bribes etc... I think they're already mad, even our so-called allies.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Who pissed in his Cheerios?
Cha
(297,935 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Or maybe not. Still, Greenwald gave a good interview.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and expose government overreach. The nerve!
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and that is why the Guardian employs him and why he is being interviewed by so many news organizations on this matter.
Why some people feel compelled to smear those who bring inconvenient truths to their attention, is beyond me.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)I don't doubt he has an ego. So do I, so do you. Any of us, if we decided to take some very public action, would then be subjected to scrutiny. Few of us would come through unscathed.
None of that, NONE of it, has any relevance whatsoever to the merits of this story.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)He bends "the News" to his will rather than reporting the facts.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...they get slipped in so easily, and are used to subtly distort meaning. It is a favorite trick of the corporate spokesperson, and of government spokespeople everywhere.
"There was no illegal wiretapping."
Yes, we know. We get that. However, the extent of the LEGAL surveillance is news to most of us. And the fact that it is all done in secret, shows that we were never meant to know.
Just because it is technically legal, doesn't make it right. It's like calling waterboarding an "enhanced interrogation technique" rather than the more prosaic, and accurate, "torture".
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Come back when you find something illegal.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...so let me spell it out for ya:
The fact that something is technically legal does not make it right.
Really.
No, really.
There used to be laws about where certain people could live. There used to be laws about who certain people could marry. There used to be laws about voting that effectively barred black people from voting. All of those laws were LEGAL. None of those laws were right.
By your reasoning, the Civil Rights movement should not have gotten off the ground. After all, they were complaining about stuff that was PERFECTLY LEGAL. So there was "nothing more to throw a fit about", right? Be consistent now...
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Right?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If he wants to change the NSA, he needs to convince the rest of us that's the right thing to do.
Who the fuck died and made him a superhero?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
asjr
(10,479 posts)of dishwater. When it comes right down to it Mr Snowden is a thief. He stole from the government of his own country. Mr Greenwald is guilty of aiding and abetting Snowden. We need to stop rushing to a number of scenarios. From some of the people on DU seem to think the government is coming to get them and take them away with all their personal property. Almost everything I have read have been hasty conclusions. We are playing right into Republican hands.
randome
(34,845 posts)Healthy skepticism is one thing. But this kind of knee-jerk paranoia is disturbing.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)NO ONE claimed that Glenn Greenwald is "the arbiter of what is right". NO ONE claimed that he "makes our decisions for us".
He is presenting information. Apparently this revelation is: (a) not all that much -- we already knew this was going on; (b) legal anyway -- so what's the beef?; or (c) a big deal -- a huge security breach, harmful to national security, and a failure of all that is good and just, which we will avenge, with prejudice.
Anyway. For the sake of argument, let's say that Greenwald's actual motive is "to change the NSA". You say he'd need to convince the rest of us that it's the right thing to do. Well then, how, pray tell, would he go about doing that? Perhaps revealing to the public how massive the surveillance is? But that would mean... wait for it... why that would mean publishing things that the government would rather are kept secret.
Regardless of his motives, Greenwald is an investigative reporter and what he is doing is in the job description.
I'm telling you. If the Internet had been around when the Pentagon Papers happened, I wonder what the reaction of people would be. There would be a large contingent here on DU excoriating Ellsberg, and the papers who published the information, and probably any reporters who were intimately involved with the story. Because, you know, how dare one individual challenge our country's defense establishment in any way. Why he probably endangered lives. In any case, he violated his sworn oath to protect those secrets. What a bad guy. I heard he goes to a psychiatrist, too bad we can't send someone in to steal his records... oh wait.
randome
(34,845 posts)He prints something that someone stole for him. And it turns out to be a legal warrant approved by all 3 branches of the government!
He could easily have written articles without the stealing and tried to convince us. But no, he wanted to do it in a way that maximizes his image.
That's how it looks to me.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...regarding the story being "something that someone stole for him": that is one of the methods that investigative reporters use. Sometimes they go out and actively try to find stuff out; other times, someone comes along and dumps it in their laps.
Does the Pentagon Papers ring any bells? There are some definite parallels: everyone knew the broad outlines of what was revealed in the Pentagon Papers, at least if they were paying attention they did. The things revealed were approved by people in all branches of government. And yet, it caused a huge outcry, in part because it made it all undeniable. Perhaps the reporters he handed those papers to should have just rejected them outright, and instead should have gone off and interviewed some generals somewhere, who would no doubt have given them all of the same information.
Similarly, in this case, we all knew there was massive surveillance going on; this just makes it undeniable. So far the government's spokespeople on this (including POTUS) have not denied the content of the story.
You say he "could easily have written articles without the stealing". Really? How? Since he himself had no first hand knowledge of how all of this works, and since it was a SECRET program, please tell us again how he could have brought this story to us "without the stealing". Are you suggesting that he should just pull it out of his ass? But then you'd criticize him for that, wouldn't you? Perhaps you mean he should have interviewed people in the government -- like, say, the head of the NSA. Yeah, that's the ticket: I'm sure that guy would have never lied to Mr. Greenwald on this topic!
randome
(34,845 posts)Instead, his only source, Ed "I have nothing to hide" Snowden made a statement then disappeared.
Combine this with the fact that Greenwald says he was speaking with Snowden before Snowden even started at the NSA in his current position and it all seems a very pat set up of some sort.
I don't trust anyone unless they have evidence. There is no evidence now and it doesn't appear they will furnish any since Snowden is now in hiding.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)You can keep catapulting ridiculously ignorant propaganda until the cows come home but it is not going to work.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...from Obama and others in our government, tells me what I need to know about the basic veracity of this story. Obama said he "welcomes discussion" on this matter. He did not say "No we don't do that". Others have pointed out that everything that's done is legal. But no one has come forward to say "Why that simply isn't true!"
I guess we have different standards.
BTW, I agree that his speaking with Snowden before Snowden started at the NSA is interesting. I would like to know more about that.
randome
(34,845 posts)But it seems odd that this latest stint -as a contractor- is when he decided to spill the goods and run.
If he stays in hiding, we may never have the information we want.
And Obama did say that no one is listening in on our phone calls, etc. Maybe he didn't make that as complete an answer as it could have been but we are all still waiting for more info to come out.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)If you are going to do ad Hominem, at least make it mildly relevant.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)or can't you feel that hot water?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)he's a clown.
Sid
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I remember his sig graphic for a very long time was a clown photo with the words, "This clown needs an enema". He must have digestive issues.
and that's putting it kindly.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)So now I know to pay more attention to Greenwald and what he says, because Sid has been on the wrong side of everything I've ever read from him.
Greenwald = Respected whip smart journalist.
Sid = ???
Thanks, Sid.
RL
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)never mind that this is six year old news, Congressionally authorized, completely legal, well known to anyone paying attention and approved of by majorities of polled American citizens."
Fixed it for ya Glenn.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You just don't have anything but false slander, do you?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Brought to you by catoinstitutevideo, Uploaded on Jan 31, 2012
And oh look, Cato is on this NSA story like flies on poop:
"How the NSA Spies on Americans," catoinstitutevideo, 4 days ago:
&feature=player_profilepage#t=223s
So Glenn is at the center of the latest CATO ratfuck, what a surprise.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.
I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).
I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.
The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past:
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);
Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs" .
the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);
Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);
liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and
Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).
Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians
As is obvious, all sorts of liberals, progressives, and even leftists have written for or spoken at CATO. It's a think tank devoted to debate and discussion of public policy, and invites a wide range of speakers to participate.
I'm proud of all the advocacy work I've done against the evils of the Drug War and surveillance abuses -- whether it's at the ACLU, CATO, the Socialism Conference or anywhere else. That's why I write openly about all of that work. But the claim that I've ever worked at CATO or was in any way affiliated with them is just an outright lie.
I'm still laughing at your screenshot of a search of his name at Cato. You get even more results when you search Barack Obama. OMG! Do you want a screenshot? LOL.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Imagine that?
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Imagine that?
RL
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)You think you are being clever but you are merely a poor propagandist.
NealK
(1,893 posts)"The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You've been shown the list of people who have spoken there or written for them including Markos Moulitos, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, Democratic Rep. Jared Polis, liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig, etc.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)whatever he might be saying is slander but what we read is written lies, hence libel
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)
I figure he's probably mouthing it out loud as he's typing.
Libel is a specific form of slander, in a general sense.
Rex
(65,616 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
I like this one better.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)fixed your title for ya!
Response to ucrdem (Reply #43)
Poll_Blind This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The propaganda you keep catapulting is getting really old.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Thank goodness somebody has the guts to stand up the Bush's Obama's government goons and perverts.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)by not allowing the narrative to be changed and sticking with the facts.
DeltaLitProf
(770 posts)See this breakdown of Greenwald's many errors:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/